Committee for Education, Wednesday 1 July 2026

Summary of Committee for Education meeting (1 July 2026)

Meeting logistics and agenda setup

• The chair reminded members and the public gallery that the meeting would be recorded and broadcast.
• Mobile devices were permitted only in airplane mode and had to remain muted.
• No photos or recording were allowed.
• Apologies were noted (Cara Hunter).
• Several members planned to join online (including Michelle and John).

---

1) Chairperson’s business: key legislative and departmental updates

School Uniforms (trousers) Bill

• The committee chair welcomed progress: the committee bill passed second stage the previous day.
• Members thanked the clerk and support staff for delivering the work quickly, praising it as evidence that delivery timelines had been underestimated.

General Teaching Council (Northern Ireland) Bill

• The minister did not proceed with the consideration stage on Tuesday.
• The committee expected further engagement with the bill team after recess and anticipated revisiting the bill in autumn.

Minister attendance during bill debate (holiday meals / uniforms context)

• Members expressed strong disappointment that the Education Minister did not attend the chamber during a relevant debate, despite writing a letter.
• Guidance referenced in the minutes suggested ministers should attend/respond to departmental matters or ensure another minister attends.

---

2) Matters arising: SEN regulations scrutiny and ministerial engagement style

Disappointment with ministerial statement approach

• The committee received a department letter and ministerial statement connected to SEN regulations.
• Members criticized the minister’s decision to engage via statement rather than direct committee discussion, particularly since the minister had been present recently (suggesting a missed opportunity).

Committee position on scrutiny approach

• Members emphasised they are not “outsourcing” scrutiny to a single witness.
• While the Children’s Law Centre was viewed as a key expert, the committee wanted comprehensive evidence on the regulations’ practical outworkings (including the code of practice), rather than being driven by a rushed approval timeframe.
• After 10 years of development, members noted that rushing was unrealistic.

Actions agreed

• The committee agreed to write to the minister:
  • expressing disappointment about the engagement method, and
  • requesting face-to-face/appropriate engagement for the SEN regulations process.
• The deputy chair added broader context: unions had requested a pause to allow scrutiny; the committee should take time to evaluate.

---

3) Additional policy issue: “Keeping Safe” (abuse prevention) resources

• Michelle raised that, after increased public attention on RSE and young people’s awareness of abuse (noted in the context of Jeffrey Donaldson’s conviction), the department-developed “Keeping Safe” programme materials (with NPCC) appear no longer available to schools.
• The committee supported writing to the department to:
  • clarify why the materials are unavailable, and
  • seek whether the department could provide IP/licensing access so a third party could update them if needed.

---

4) Draft minutes

• The committee agreed draft minutes for its 24 June meeting as accurate.

---

5) Department of Education budget briefing (resource and capital pressures)

2025/26 (outturn) position: “within budget” but dependent on reserve funding

• The department reported 2025/26 outturn was within budget, mainly due to:
  • a significant in-year reserve claim (around £214m of ~£300m resource budget),
  • savings, including around £35m from the Education Authority (EA), and
  • a small under-spend (under ~£4m total; most re-allocated/carry-forward).
• Capital outturn:
  • final budget around £400m,
  • small under-spend (~£2.6m), described as minor works movements.

2026/27 (current year) crisis: no agreed executive budget

• Major warning: there is no agreed executive budget, leaving the department in an “almost unprecedented” situation.
• Interim budgets were allocated to keep schools/ALBs running, based on the previous year’s opening position (~£3.2bn), but estimated need is around £3.9bn.
• Legal spending position:
  • only ~45% of prior-year spending is clearly usable initially,
  • contingency envelopes could allow up to ~95% at block level if approvals are in place by 31 July,
  • but this still leaves a large shortfall versus the department’s estimated need.
• The department said it is taking legal advice and working with DoF on alternatives, as planning is difficult given the gap.

Proposed five-year education budget strategy (longer-term reform)

The department described a five-year education budget sustainability plan aimed at transformation and efficiencies, with key spend/pressure areas:

1. Home-to-school transport
2. Schools delivery
3. SEN model restructuring
4. Restructuring the schools estate
5. Financial management of schools model

Early learning and childcare funding uncertainty (55m vs 75m)

• Assured funding: £55m is confirmed.
• Under urgent procedures, the minister requested £75m to maintain current provision for the full year.
• If only £55m is confirmed, further cuts may be required later in the year—raising risk, particularly for services funded via subsidy-type arrangements.
• Members sought details on what portion supports specific grants/subsidies (e.g., Pathway Fund/Bright Start). Officials said they would return with a breakdown.

Schools in deficit: limited practical levers

• Members heard many schools are financially strained:
  • at the end of 2025/26, about 67% of schools were in deficit (not “free” beyond accounting limits).
• Officials explained deficits are often “covered” via EA block grant annually, meaning it is partly an accounting/paper position—but still reflects real pressures.
• Members pressed:
  • whether reform could push more money directly to school budgets, and
  • why deficits have become normal.
• The department said reforms include reviewing:
  • the common funding formula, and
  • the wider local management of schools framework,
  • alongside examining whether earmarked funds could be converted into broader school funding at the start of the year.

---

6) Capital programme briefing: aging estate, shortfalls, and priorities

Infrastructure pressures

• The department highlighted:
  • an aging estate, and
  • a significant maintenance backlog.
• 2025/26 capital outturn: ~£42.9m
  • includes allocations such as Stru and Fresh Start projects; Fresh Start described as now finished.

2026/27 draft capital allocation

• Draft capital budget includes an allocation around £357m, but members heard it is below prior year and insufficient for needs.
• Bids had previously been submitted for larger sums (as referenced in the briefing), but funding still falls short.
• Interim indicative allocations included:
  • ~£108m for STRU (with discussion that STRU demand may be substantially higher).

STRU (one large capital item dominating spend)

• Members criticised that Stroll/STRU accounts for a large share of capital (roughly a third of interim allocations) and sought more transparency about affordability/value and project scale.
• Officials responded that governance/business cases exist, spending is monitored against approvals, and a post-project evaluation will occur.
• A follow-up action was proposed:
  • write to request a full breakdown of STRU spend over multiple years, shown as a share of total capital budget.

Maintenance triage vs proactive planning

• On why some schools receive “pitches”/curriculum facilities while others report leaking roofs:
  • Officials said maintenance budgets are resource, not capital.
  • With constrained resource budgets, maintenance has become more reactive.
  • Urgent minor works requests can be submitted and are triaged (health/safety-first versus planned works).
  • The department said it is trying to shift toward more proactive estate planning using estate strategy work and audit findings.

Procurement and value for money

• Members asked whether procurement inefficiency wastes money.
• Officials acknowledged procurement can be slow.
• They argued cost pressures (“superinflation”) and inflation clauses affected contractor pricing between pre-tender and tender approval.
• EA planned a pilot (from September) allowing some schools to do local procurement up to a threshold, to provide flexibility.

---

7) Legislative processing items: bills considered and reported

Education and holiday meal payments bill (committee stage + agreed report)

• The committee proceeded clause-by-clause with technical amendments.
• Members agreed a draft report and approved publishing correspondence.
• Amendments would be processed via the bill office.

Irish medium education workforce plan bill (committee stage report)

• Late department correspondence provided technical/legal drafting amendments.
• Members agreed the draft report as presented, with amendments to be processed later, and agreed correspondence would be published.
• Officials/deputy chair expressed disappointment at late arrival, but the committee proceeded.

---

8) RS(E) (Relationships and Sexuality Education) inquiry: draft report and political handling

Report content and committee disagreement

• David stated the inquiry process did not reach consensus.
• While many safeguarding-related points align, there are deep disagreements on other content/interpretation issues.
• He declared a party position to vote against the report, despite shared elements.

Agreement on publishing and media release

• Despite disagreements, members agreed to publish the report and agreed a media release framing RS(E) reform and inconsistencies in delivery/content/monitoring/governance.
• The media release emphasised:
  • standardized, inclusive, high-quality, age-appropriate RS(E),
  • misinformation combat,
  • alignment with UK/international standards,
  • safeguarding focus,
  • no right of withdrawal for elements directly concerned with safeguarding from abuse/exploitation.

Debate in the Assembly chamber

• Members agreed (with some discussion) the report should go to full Assembly debate after summer recess to correct misinformation and allow public discussion—rather than avoiding parliamentary scrutiny.

---

9) Committee strategic review: delay requested (SEN provision/transformation agenda)

• For a draft strategic review report (item 10), David proposed deferring to the first week back (rather than immediately before recess).
• Members agreed to defer to build consensus and avoid rushed voting without full consideration.

---

10) Statutory Rule (SR2026/106): agreed with no objections

• The committee approved an SR to modernize/simplify school development plans:
  • revoke/replace 2010 regulations,
  • create a structured three-year plan updated annually,
  • subject to negative resolution.
• The examiner had no issues.

---

11) Correspondence and follow-ups agreed during pre-recess clearing

Key correspondence items included:

• Integrated education fund concerns: to be covered in September oral briefing.
• Department review of behaviour policy:
  • committee agreed to write supporting an evidence-based rights-based trauma-informed restorative approach,
  • and to seek reassurance the department will not prejudge outcomes based on prior public statements.
• Education inspections bill timetable:
  • committee agreed to write offering assurance it will complete committee stage before 9 December.
• Other items noted/scheduled included EA/health-related correspondence on summer schemes and other educational supports.

---

12) Actions before recess and next meeting

Agreed actions

• Multiple follow-ups were agreed, including:
  • detailed correspondence requesting ELC budget breakdown,
  • “Keeping Safe” IP/access clarification,
  • SEN regulations/ministerial engagement letter,
  • STRU/major works transparency request.
• The committee approved delegation of some non-controversial FOI decisions to the chair/deputy chair during recess.

Next meeting

• Wednesday 16 September 2026, 2pm, room 29 / online.

---

Presenters / contributors (named in the subtitles)

• Chairperson / Nick Mat, MLA (Chair of the committee)
• Danny (bill sponsor / member speaking on multiple items; name not fully captured in subtitles)
• David (member; multiple interventions)
• Michelle (member)
• Deputy Chair (name not captured in subtitles; referenced repeatedly)
• Clerk (unnamed)
• Neil Palmer (Department of Education Finance Director)
• Connor Needle (Deputy Finance Director, Department of Education)
• Steven Cray (Deputy Director of Investment and Infrastructure, Department of Education)
• Cara Hunter (apology noted)
• John (joining online; name captured only as “John”)
• Julie (joining / present; name captured only as “Julie”)
• Jeffrey Donaldson (referenced in RS(E) discussion; not a presenter)
• Children’s Law Centre (stakeholder referenced; not a presenter)
• NPCC (referenced in “Keeping Safe” programme context; not a presenter)
• Education Authority (EA) (referenced; not a presenter)
• Northern Ireland Audit Office / PAC (referenced; not presenters)